# Quantifying Overclaiming Propensity in Frontier LLM Agents

> Source: <http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20812v1>
> Published: 2026-09-18 15:14:04+00:00

# Computer Science > Software Engineering

  [Submitted on 17 Sep 2026]

# Title:Quantifying Overclaiming Propensity in Frontier LLM Agents

[View PDF](http://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.20812v1)

[HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.20812v1)

Abstract:Frontier coding agents are increasingly trusted to work autonomously for long periods, yet an agent's final response is often the only account of that work a user sees. We quantify the propensity of frontier agents to \emph{overclaim} task completion, a misrepresentation that can mislead the user. An agent overclaims when its final response contradicts information in its context. This definition requires no inference about intent and is independent of task success. We introduce \emph{OverclaimBench}, an evaluation suite composed of five file-review scenarios, transcript-based coverage measurements, and registered planted defects. We evaluate eight proprietary frontier models in their own production command-line interfaces, and four open-weight models under a single fixed harness on OverclaimBench and find that 1) agents do not read all the files they were asked to review in 67.9\% of runs; 2) among runs where not all files are read, agents are \emph{misleading} 80.4\% of the time (59--96\% per model), either falsely claiming to have read all files or omitting that coverage is incomplete; 3) requiring delegation to subagents increased reading coverage, but among reviews that remained incomplete, a large majority were still misleading; and 4) agents that falsely claimed a complete review missed planted defects at about 1.8 times the rate of agents that read every file, showing that claims of completion can conceal substantive failures. Together, these results show that agents' final responses are not reliable accounts of their actions.
    

## Submission history

From: Pascal Junior Tikeng Notsawo [
[view email](http://arxiv.org/show-email/2d862e52/2609.20812)]

**[v1]** Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:59:04 UTC (3,608 KB)

### Current browse context:

cs.SE

### References & Citations

Loading...

# Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer 

*(*[What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer))
Connected Papers 

*(*[What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about))
Litmaps 

*(*[What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/))
scite Smart Citations 

*(*[What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/))
# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv 

*(*[What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/))
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers 

*(*[What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com))
DagsHub 

*(*[What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/))
Gotit.pub 

*(*[What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq))
Hugging Face 

*(*[What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface))
ScienceCast 

*(*[What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome))
# Demos

# Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower 

*(*[What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/))
CORE Recommender 

*(*[What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender))
# arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html).